14/12/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/12/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Welcome to the Daily Politics. The top story today: After her high-


octane argument over an independent Scotland, and whether it would need


to apply for membership of the EU, the leaders of the Yes campaign and


the No campaign debated for the first time. Ed Miliband says


everybody in Britain should be able to speak English, and that it


should be a requirement in key professions. We will have details


of his speech on social integration. We will ask the Health Minister who


is rolling out budgets for personal health budgeting across England


what it means for patients. As part of our regular look at Europe, we


have sent a monoglot to find out how the EU communicate. English,


French, Italian, Spanish, The multilingual programme that we


are. All that in the next hour. With me is Martin Sorrell, he runs


the advertising giant WPP and is the long-standing chief executive


in the FTSE 100. Sitting at the moment. Take the weight off your


feet. Let's start by speaking about Ed Miliband's later speech on


immigration. Earlier this year, he said his party had got it wrong by


not restricting the flow of migrants from Eastern Europe in


2004. This morning, he is saying too little has been done to


integrate those who settled in British society. The speech comes a


few days after the census showed that fewer than half the people


We were at the nearby college just now, particularly the women that we


met there were speaking about how important it was to learn English,


because it gave them not only the ability to help their children, get


into work, but also be part of our society. That is what language


gives you, that is why it is so important. If we're going to be one


nation, which I believe in, we should have the goal that everyone


in the society we have should speak English. We should expect that of


people who come here. Before we get on to that, let speak about the


figures. Between 1997 and 2010, net migration totalled more than 2.2


million people. Was that too much? Personal view, not corporate view,


I don't think it can never be too much. Immigrants provide a lot of


resources, thought, entrepreneurial vigour, enthusiasm and creative


perversity. My grandparents came here from Russia in 1899. They


could not speak a word of English. I would not be here if it was not


for them. I think you can never have too much diversity in a


country. One of the things that troubles me is when we get into


these issues about the EU, some of the arguments made about the use


there is too much immigration, and implicitly there is an extreme


right-wing bias against immigration. It comes into the debate in a


subtle way, but I think immigration is extremely important. At the


moment, we don't have enough foreign students. We have foreign


students who come here, are educated here and go away. We had


certain sectors of the economy where we cannot get enough skilled


labour. What about controlling it? Even Ed Miliband is saying they


should have been harder on illegal immigrants, clamping down on the


floor. I'm right in saying we do not know the number of illegal


immigrants. We don't control it effectively. I would agree on that.


Then there is the question about hurdles. The system currently in


effect would have stopped my grandparents from coming, so I


would have a vested bias against that. You have to be extremely


careful about the legislation. On the language skills that he raised,


it is not just English. One of the problems the British had, they are


not very good at languages at all. It is not just learning English,


because the Chinese have the highest English-speaking population


in the world, over 300 million. It is about, a German, Spanish,


Italian... Yesterday, George Osborne told MPs on the Treasury


Select Committee what starring role he had in the school nativity play.


Did he play and Shepherd, a wise man, a donkey or the triangle?


Later in the show, Martin Sorrell will give us the correct answer. If


you're watching the Daily Politics last week, you will have seen


Andrew speaking to Michael Moore about the question whether an


independent Scotland would automatically stay in the European


Union. It is a crucial question, and this week, Jose Manuel Barroso


confirmed it is his view that if Scotland votes for independence in


2014, it would need to reapply for EU membership. The SNP strongly


disagree. Yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon made a statement in the


Scottish Parliament on the issue. Here is a flavour of that debate.


The European Commission, however important, is not the final arbiter


of these matters. Jose Manuel Barroso's statements do not


constitute a ruling, as some have suggested, nor does the commission


even claim to be specifically addressing the specific situation


of Scotland. The president of the Commission made clear in his letter


to the House of Lords committee that the European Commission has


expressed its views in general. thank the Deputy First Minister for


prior sight of her statement, it is a triumph of optimism and


evasiveness over hard-headed reality, because it poses more


questions than it answers. She says the process of negotiating the


place in Europe will take 18 months. How is that possible in the fastest


ever process took three years? Does she even know if she will be


granted a meeting with Jose Manuel Barroso? His Annabel Goldie or


anyone in this chamber seriously saying that Scotland would find


itself ejected from the European Union? Oil-rich, renewable energy


right, fishing rights Scotland. If they arguing that, they should


stand up and argue that explicitly and they will be laughed out of the


chamber and laugh that across the country. They will deserve to be.


The statement answers the question I asked the first minister earlier,


does he expect all 27 member states to simply sign up to whatever the


Scottish Government demand? The answer seems to be yes, they do. It


seems to be she has a starry eyed belief that an independent Scotland


would never lose out in any negotiation ever for the rest of


time. Back in reality, can she answer Patricia Ferguson's


question? When does she plan to meet the 27 members of the European


Union to establish whether they agree? I look forward to engaging


with other member states, with the European Commission, if they will


engage with us, with the UK government. We will talk about the


arguments for Scotland being an independent country, because those


arguments are not as compelling, they are unanswerable. -- Not only


compelling. Nicola Sturgeon. We have been joined from Glasgow by


Blair Jenkins, chief executive of yes Scotland, and Alistair Darling.


Will Scotland need to reapply it for you membership? The key point


in all this is whether the negotiations on the continued


membership happens with Scotland being inside the European Union


were having to come out. We are confident that Scotland will be


negotiating terms and conditions as part of the European Union from a


position of continuing to be with them. It is not automatic, is it?


It will not be automatic that Scotland independently would become


a member of do you? It is a political rather than a legal issue.


There is no position for the citizens to stop being part of the


European Union. This will be a political issue. It is


inconceivable that those negotiations will take place


against any other framework and Scotland being part of the EU.


may be the case, but do you accept that the SNP has repeatedly said,


and certainly implied, that it would be automatic. There would be


no case for having to reapply? Now we discover that Jose Manuel


Barroso has said that new independent countries would have to


apply and it is not guaranteed. The SNP have given the impression that


it would be guaranteed. Jose Manuel Barroso has offered his opinion.


is pretty important, isn't he? Indeed, and I would not disagree.


It has always been said there would be negotiations. The Scottish


Government have always been clear that there would be negotiations


and that would be the case. Alistair Darling, it seems Blair


Jenkins has admitted there would be negotiations, not an automatic


entry, but to take Nicola Sturgeon's., why would anyone block


it? -- Nicola Sturgeon's opinion. We have always said it would have


to negotiate its position on matters like the currency, border


controls, rebate. For years, Nicola Sturgeon has said the membership of


the European Union would be automatic, she had a legal opinion


to back that up which turns out to be nonsense, there never was a


legal opinion. What we will get as a result of this is the uncertainty


that comes firstly in try to negotiate a break-up of the UK with


the rest of the UK, and secondly, the uncertainty that comes through


negotiations with the rest of the European Union. Finland, which is


an uncontroversial application, that took three years. We know some


member states who, for their own reasons, will want to make life


difficult because of their own internal difficulties. You have


years of uncertainty which is extremely damaging to businesses,


therefore to employment and jobs in Scotland. All this because the


nationalists sought to mislead people into believing that nothing


would change, it would be automatic, there was no risk to anything. We


now see the truth of it. The deceived us, we're now in a


position throwing ourselves at the mercy of 27 other countries and


nobody knows the outcome. campaign has deceived the


electorate and be misleading. don't think that is the case but I


think the question Alistair Darling needs to answer... Let's just


answer those accusations, he has said the whole campaign was based


on deception. I don't speak on the Scottish Government but I have been


saying all along this, and I have been clear. From the No campaign


perspective, it is he saying Scotland would need to leave the UK


and renegotiate? -- leave the European Union and renegotiate?


Does he agree that we would continue to be part and renegotiate


from within? Will you answer his question about years of


uncertainty? None of this is guaranteed, you have been


campaigning on a promise you cannot back up. You cannot guarantee it.


That is what has been said to the Scottish electorate. The SNP have


said we will remain part of do you, we will keep the sterling, we will


keep opting out, now the argument is, is anyone seriously saying the


European Union would not want Scotland as an independent member?


Nobody is seriously saying in Europe that Scotland will not be a


member of the EU. What about the years of uncertainty? Another


example is East Germany, when it read it -- when it reunited it


joined overnight. That was on the basis of 40 years of communist


dictatorship and East Germany conforming with none of this and


additions -- none of the conditions. If that can become part of the


European Union overnight, then Scotland with 40 years of


participation in accord with all the requirements would find itself


in a more difficult position, that is absurd. I don't think anyone


credibly in Scotland will be saying Scotland will not continue to be


members of the European Union. difference between me and the


campaign opposite is I have never argued something that is contest


the ball, I have never argued that Scotland could not get into the


European Union. I have always said there would be negotiations on key


issues like currency, border controls, the rebate. Take one


example, the rebate. It is no secret that the rest of the


European Union does not like the fact that the UK has a rebate, they


have always been trying to get rid of it. Do you think for one moment


that prevented with an opportunity to renegotiate -- presented with an


opportunity to renegotiate that, they would not take it? If you look


at the new members of the European Union, they have signed up to the


euro. I said earlier, one of the problems the nationalists have got,


they have two policies, negotiating with the European Union, the second


is we will have a currency union with the rest of the UK to keep the


pound, even though nobody is proposing to ask England, Wales and


Northern Ireland. How could you join a currency union when you


don't know whether you need to join the euro? The deceit here is that


for years the nationalists have said you do not need to worry about


this. Now the same people are saying we will get in overnight, it


is no problem. I cannot believe this because I do not believe


preparation has been done, Alex Salmond is nowhere to be seen. That


speaks volumes for the fact that the nationalists are in various


places. The problem is, Scotland will need to make the biggest


decision it has ever made, and it looks more like we are being sold a


one-way ticket to an uncertain destination, they are not sure


where they're going, and peopled might be wary of them. -- people


should now be. Why was this preparation not done before? Why is


Nicola Sturgeon only now writing to Jose Manuel Barroso? Why was legal


advice will be taken in October? Plenty of time to clarify these


He made an important point. He used the word deceit. One of the


suggestions of the No campaign is the false assertion that Scollan


would be forced to join the euro. - - Scotland. That is untrue. I would


call him to withdraw that assertion. Do you withdraw that assertion?


What I said was that three of the issues that are going to confront


Scotland is whether we join the euro, passport control, and the


rebate. Nobody knows the outcome of these negotiations, least of all


the nationalists. Blair Jenkins will tell you that he doesn't know,


either. Up until now, everybody who is joining, the euro is there. It


is an article of political faith among speak European Union. It is


central. The uncertainty here, because we will not know, and the


idea that this can be sorted overnight - nothing in Europe is


sorted overnight - the idea is fanciful. The reason I used the


word deceit is, remember, Alex Salmond told us there was a legal


opinion. Nicola Sturgeon says she had a legal opinion. It turns out


that is not true. Why are you so certain that you


would not have to join the euro, or at least had a difficult and long


negotiations over not joining? It is clear that there has to be a


mechanism. Participation in the exchange-rate mechanism is


voluntary. There are a number of things being said which are


misleading. Some members of the campaign talk about border posts


and controls. This is part of trying to lay roadblocks in the way


of the Scottish people to prevent debate about what a future Scotland


could and should be. Where the debate is going to focus is that


there's one certainty by staying in the UK is that we will continue to


get governments that we did not vote for. Scottish people will


continue to live in fuel poverty in one of the most energy rich nations


in the world. That will focus the mind of Scottish people.


Blair Jenkins, thank you very much, and Alastair Darling, thank you.


The first of many debates among you, I'm sure.


What about a comment from you on this? Be careful what you wish for.


The devil is in the detail. Thinking through all these issues


at is something that the Independent movement has not


explored. That is because negotiations are


involved. Blair Jenkins has a point. The campaign has been criticised


for not doing preparation - these things are always up for


negotiation. If we have to renegotiate our bilateral


agreements, how long is that going to take? People are saying 10 years.


We will be going on forever, renegotiating our agreements. Half


of them go to the EU market. The point that Alastair Darling makes


about uncertainty is a good one. Faced with these uncertainties,


talking about Scottish independence or whether we are in or out of


Europe, it gives business, which is involved in long-range planning,


the heebie-jeebies. What they worry about his where they are going to


get the growth from. It is not coming from Western Europe now. We


are going to have to wait until 2018 or there for Europe to get its


act together. This is incremental uncertainty, which we don't need in


the UK or Europe. It is the time of year when we let


go of the purse-strings and try to forget how much we are spending on


presents. That is what retailers will be hoping for as a limb for a


much-needed boost in sales. It has been another year in which the


British economy has struggled. Are things looking brighter for 2013?


In last week's Autumn Statement, the Chancellor admitted that


because of sluggish growth, it was going to take an additional year to


eliminate the deficit and the Office of Budget Responsibility


said the economy would shrink by 0.1 % in the final three months of


this year. Some economists say we will return to recession. Spending


power has been hit, too. The latest figures show annual growth of 1.3%


in earnings. There's been more positive news on the jobs front.


The broad measure of unemployment fell by 80,000, the largest fall in


a decade. Employment for 18-24 year olds went up by 55,000. Despite


this, the UK's Triple A status is under threat. It is a blow for the


Chancellor and his austerity measures. Let's discuss this with


Martin Sorrell. Let's pick up on the negative outlook for the Triple


A rating. Did George Osborne lay too much store by that rating?


He has fixed his course. He has put in place policies which please the


international markets. He has lowered the rate of borrowing for


the UK. It is not dissimilar to what we have seen in other


countries. Italy have done the same. This was needed to get us out of


the problems. We have seen other countries lose it, and does it


matter? No. Intuitively, I have a negative reaction. When you examine


it, maybe not so much. However, it is symbolic. It is not a position


the government wants to be in. The government pursued the right course


in the short term. Do you trust George Osborne to get


growth going? I think it will come. Because of the policies, or despite


then? Partly because of them. In America, they pursued expansion,


and Britain hasn't. Government spending has risen in nominal terms.


If you inflation at just, it may have fallen in real terms. --


adjust. The targets that were set, either in front or after the


election, were too strong. We have a last decade, and we are halfway


through it. We are going to have austerity until 2018.


Which is interesting, given the election in 2015. The coalition is


going into that, saying, we have continuing austerity. Not a recipe


that usually wins elections. Chancellor has pinned his figures


on closing tax loopholes. Is that a credible plan? We can argue that


some of it is one time as opposed to selling licences or assets. It


is a one-time adjustment. I actually think that if you look at


the Budget statements that George Osborne has made, given the lack of


wiggle room, it has been a highly creative. We have seen into


strutted changes, banks trying to stimulate small and medium-sized


companies, corporation tax. The fact is, there were excesses of an


extreme nature. We are over inflated the economy. That


correction is going to take a long time. There's no getting away from


that. Will it be worse next year, or


better? Looking at the project has for GDP, it should be about the


same. Ironically, it is forecast to be a bit better. Real GDP is meant


to be going up. Briefly, do you believe global companies like


Starbucks and Amazon have not been paying their fair share of tax?


We are getting into dangerous territory. Starbucks saying they


are going to pay corporation tax. They should have given the money to


apprenticeship schemes, for example, rather than say they are going to


pay minimal tax. The whole issue you have to be careful about.


Companies are extremely fluid and extremely mobile. The government


here, it's arrestingly, the coalition changed the policy. --


interestingly. The government have now given some certainty. That is


what is needed. I have to say this. Companies can leave the country, a


tax point of view without leaving the country physically. We knew it


export your brand, you're leaving the country.


Is it morally right? We will come to that on another occasion. In two


years, if you suffer from a long- term condition in England, you will


have a right to take control of the money the NHS spends on the


treatment. It is seen as the Holy Grail in helping the NHS to deal


with spending cuts. A place where it has been tried out his


Northamptonshire. Adam has been to find out how it works.


Three years ago, Alex had a stroke that affected his sight and mental


health. A year ago, he was given control of the money the NHS spends


on him and he bought... Yes, a drum kit. It helps him with his


medication. Instead of going for weekly


physiotherapy, I go for a weekly jobless and. I tried -- drum lesson.


I try to make myself go. It is here, it is my multi-gym. It is not a


frivolous thing. It is very functional.


He is there at anything that the 37 patients on this scheme could not


get? The limit is that they have to have


a measurable health outcome, that they are going to make progress.


The only limits to what you can buy is you can't buy anything illegal,


you can't buy alcohol, you can't gamble.


Cheapies like Matthew help people decide how they to spend their


budgets. -- GPs. Many opted for non-traditional schemes.


We have got people are getting older, people with more complex


conditions. We have got more we can do for people at the moment. We


need to change the way we are doing things. The NHS can't cope with


this, going forward. Personalisation allows us to work


with patients more effectively. That is why the Department of


Health has decided to allow the scheme across England from 2014,


but only to those suffering long- term health conditions. It could


save around �90 million per year, but the real goal is to make ill


people feel better. It has given me a bit of a purpose


in life, rather than just joining the rest of the sheep, joining the


queue. I'm trying to do something about it myself.


Alex has also bought a Sat Nav with his money, because problems with


his memory 90 kept getting lost. -- meant he kept getting lost. The


debate is over whether this is a treatment or a treat.


We have been joined by the Lib Dem health minister, Norman Lamb. An


interesting idea, having watched the film. How do you sell it to the


public in a way that doesn't give the impression that this is a waste


of money, that money is going on holidays rather than medical


treatment? You just have to look at the


results. Alex's story is, I think, very powerful. This story is


matched by the evidence across the board. We are seeing a real


increase in people's sense of well- being. They are taking control. In


a way, this is a move from a paternalistic health service - we


know best - to a personal one, where the individual, in


collaboration with the help professional, works out what is


best for them. -- health professional.


I can see how it would increase well-being and people may like it.


Does it actually save money? It is a very important result if we can


improve people's well-being. That is what the health service should


be about! There is also evidence it can reduce hospital admissions. I


met a guy who was part of the pilot in Kent. His story was also a


powerful. He had been in and out of hospital constantly. Give him


control, give him the right to determine his priorities, helping


to self- care better, and actually, it resulted in a massive reduction


in his hospital admissions. So, a big improvement in his well-being


and a saving to the NHS. I repeat, I think this could be powerful.


Would you like to see it rolled out further? Who would access it? I


know this is a trial. But people on long-term illnesses, are they the


only people who could access the We will start with those people. We


can make that work quickly. It can go beyond that. I am open-minded


about a very areas of health care, for example, mental health. --


other areas. If there is any place where it really matters it is


mental health. It can have a massively positive effect. Even


with maternity, giving the power to the mother-to-be, to decide how the


money is best used, that could potentially be very effective.


Before you go, what you think? think it is a good idea. It gets


rid of the nanny state, and if you look at health care it is very


interesting. People diagnose themselves a lot. Is that safe?


have a control mechanism, the nurse and a GP. They need to approve or


recommend where the budget is spent. These are for people suffering


long-term injuries, the case studies will go the other way, but


it is really good. We speak at a happiness Index, this makes people


feel more in control of their destiny. That is what life is


increasingly about, with things like the Internet. If you do access


this money, �10,000, does that mean you will not be able to access


other services because you have had the money to deal with your


condition? No. Firstly, it is right that the care plan is agreed


between you and your GP, but if you need other care and support beyond


what the package has provided for you, you are not denied health care,


that would be ridiculous. This is about using the money that is


available for your condition much more effectively, and as a liberal,


I think this is a Liberal Health Service, it is very exciting.


is just time before you go to find out the answer to the quiz. The


question was, what starring role did George Osborne take in the


school nativity play? Was it a shepherd, a wise man, a donkey or


the triangle. I think he was probably the triangle. Did you know


that? It was a complete guess. are right. Coming up in a moment,


our monthly look at what has been going on in European politics, but


first it is time to say goodbye to Martin Sorrell. Thank you very much.


This week, members of the European Parliament have been meeting in


Strasbourg for their regular session. What have they been


getting up to? Here is our guide to the latest in Europe in just 60


Which novel piece of Europe got a gong this week? The European Union


except that the Nobel Peace Prize for uniting the Continent after two


world wars. David Cameron was unable to attend leaving the


schmoozing to Nick Clegg. Jose Manuel Barroso and the SNP have


fallen out. Jose Manuel Barroso says it is obvious an independent


country would need to reapply for European Union membership.


Italian Prime Minister says he will resign, and Silvio Berlusconi has


withdrawn support. He will resign if they pass budget legislation.


Campaigners for a single seat for the European Parliament to double


as it was ruled that MEPs should continue meeting in Strasbourg once


a month. It took 40 years to event, but the European Union has


introduced a new system that could For the next 30 minutes I have been


joined by Kay Swinburne and Claude Moraes. Let's look at the agreement


on a single patent for Europe. Sounds like a good idea. Why


shouldn't there just be one? Do you welcome it? I do, we have waited a


long time for this and it is really good news for lots of businesses.


One system across ball of the EU is perfectly placed to help us expand


in the market. -- across all the EU. Except, Italy and Spain are opting


out. They have special circumstances. Not everyone argues


that, it is extraordinary. I have been in the parliament since 1999,


I represent London, which probably has more innovators than anywhere.


They have been telling me this has been going since the 1970s. The


United States, Martin Sorrell was here earlier, competing with the


United States to get a unified patent that helps innovators. That


is an extraordinary jump forward for the single market, and it is


just the kind of thing we need to boost business. What costs are we


talking about? The United States is quoted as having a very low figure.


Is it really that much more expensive in do you? It is, because


you need to go through 27 different member states. If you consolidate


that, you would expect that to be 26 times less. It will not be quite


that big a difference, but it will be material. When you have a


dispute, you will have one court, one arbiter. That is critical for


businesses. They can go to one place to get this dispute. Part of


that structure will hopefully be in the UK, which is fantastic. And in


English. English will be part of it, part of the location will be in the


UK, that is a great victory. European Union leaders have been


meeting in Brussels to work out how better to supervise banks across


the eurozone. They have agreed the European Central Bank will become


the supervisor of the banking sector, beginning in 2014. Three


banks from each member state will fall under the regime. Smaller


banks will continue to be supervised by national regulators.


The measure is being seen as the first step towards full banking


union, with a single deposit guarantee Scheme and a mechanism to


wind up failing banks. Leaders have also been discussing co-operation


between European countries. The President has recommended a greater


fiscal union, including decision- making on national budget. After


the summit closed, David Cameron gave his views. There needs to be


flexibility in Europe, flexibility that respect the fact that there


are countries that do not want to and never will join the euro, so we


need to be flexible about how Europe develops. Also, I believe


that it will lead to opportunities for us in the UK to make changes in


our relationship with the European Union that will suit us better. The


British people will be more comfortable about that. We have


been joined from Brussels by Alex Barker. David Cameron and George


Osborne both say they are happy to get closer whilst Britain retains


influence on the periphery. How does it retain influence? Someone


once described to me that Britain's situation used to be in the fast


lane of Europe going slow, now it is in the slow low of Europe going


slow, and what David Cameron needs to do is find some changes to the


rules which allowed those two things to co-exist. He is keen on


the single market. He made progress in Europe by having majority rule


that basically over road people -- over rights protections their


economies would have. The trouble is that Britain is a minority, and


there needs to be protection for the UK to feel comfortable in that.


Those protections, how easy will they be to achieve? That is always


the area of debate. This assumption that Britain will be able to


negotiate its way to protecting whatever they want. How does the


eurozone views Britain in these negotiations? The banking union


negotiation is really important in a precedent, because they were a


formal coccus, they were getting foreword. -- caucus. They would


have had a majority to impose those views. The precedent is the rules


for Britain were changed, so it has more of an ability to maintain


influence and make sure it is not a suffering. The trouble is, that was


over a technical issue, financial standards. When it comes to making


a loss, -- making legislation, they will not be able to make emergency


rules easily. The French will be unhappy. What we will see in the


future is as the Europa zone -- eurozone gets more united, seeing,


and perspectives, it will be hard to see Britain maintaining as bake


a say as it has at the moment. -- as larger say. How will Britain


protect its interests when it is on the outside? What happened this


week, obviously we are nearly there, we have a step to take next week,


because the parliament now needs to agree with the council's position.


I have the delight of being the only non eurozone parliamentarian


negotiating that. I hope to bring home what they have negotiated as a


final deal. The problem is we have them acknowledging that there is a


requirement for a dual voting system. That is a major step


forward. We have persuaded them to do that to protect the single


market. That is because everybody around that table realises that 40%


of the financial markets take place in London, and the knee to take


that into account. Let's talk about law-making in general. -- they need


to take that. Are you saying you are happy for Britain to be on the


outside in future negotiations? problem is it is not them and us.


There are a large number of countries outside. 10 member states


do not use the euro as a common currency. Other things outside


banking and financing, some people use certain rules, some do not. We


have different rules across different areas. Are you happy with


that arrangement? There will be, in place, a two-tier Europe, and we


will be on the outside. It is not about being happy, it is about the


single market, the fact that we are in the single market, we need to


make it work. For I saw Sweden, not being in the euro does not mean we


do not have access to the single market, we have the City of London.


-- for Britain or for Sweden. What that means is, when we have the


common banking supervisor, we buy into that. That means that we have


to have some access to it, some sort of say, but it is in our


interest for the euro to be working well, and for the European Central


Bank to have some power. To be powerless in this, that is allowing


us to have no solutions to the European crisis. That is bad for us.


What about the issue of repatriation of powers? There are


many Tory MPs, and the Government has said that they want to


repatriate powers, but Mark Field has call that a fantasy. There are


some things we have sung not -- there are things we have not signed


up to. Could the repatriate powers? We have given up some things,


including employment. If we try to bring back something we recently


gave up, there is more hope. If we are renegotiating from the outset,


fundamental things that we negotiated 20 years ago, we would


not want to take part. They would be difficult. There are things we


can actually take control over, and take sovereignty back. How fast you


think this closer integration will The EU tends to meander rather than


going in straight lines. This week we have seen the biggest step


forward in pooling sovereignty is the creation of the single currency.


At the same time, at the summit yesterday, they decided to set a


time line and to set another one in June. It is a road map to a


blueprint for something in the future. It is very vague. Often


this is for market pressure more than anything.


On that basis, Claude Moraes, we are not going to know what the


shape of the EU is going to look like. So flirting with the


referendum, as Ed Miliband has done - was that wise?


We do know that we are going to have tighter fiscal union with the


eurozone. That is something that is going to happen. There's going to


be all kinds of proposals. Some of that is in our interest. It is in


our interest to have an ECB that is strong to solve the economic crisis.


We are in the single market. We do 47% of our trade with the rest of


that market. That is important for us. What it means for treaties and


referendums, we have to keep an open mind about that and argue our


case in Europe. The single market is all about, as


we have been hearing, opening up services across Europe to


competition. 20 years on from the start of the single market, there's


still many areas of the economy where it is not think --


implemented. For example, baggage handling at airports. This week


there was a proposal to liberalise the market in that area. Susana


Mendonca was in Strasbourg. They usually put your suitcases on


the right plane, but these workers were in Strasbourg to demand that


plans for more competition in the sector should be sent packing. The


European Commission had wanted European airports to open up their


ground handling services to at least three different companies.


And there's been such anger over over the issue that it can get


groundstaff outside the European Parliament on a freezing cold day.


If you get a new handlers, new competitors, always Down, Down,


Down, there's no safeguarding of the rights of the workers.


Frankfurt is a small airport and I think the quality will decrease.


There will be a competition only for wages down hill. That is not


the competition we want. They were not disappointed. MEPs


voted to send the plans back to the drawing board, which would have


pleased German and Austrian airports, to, in particular


Frankfurt, which owns 85% of its ground handling services and has


just one other provider. It had lobbied against the plans. This any


pieces the proposals were driven by a blind desire to expand the single


market. -- this NEP. We should think about it


pragmatically. We should leak about the ideology of the neo-liberal


market. -- leave out. The single market is what allows


people, goods, services and capital to move freely around the EU. In


its 20th year, the focus is on completing the process, services


like online trot -- Commerce and transport are where the commission


wants to fill the gaps. Take down barriers and Europe can


be successful. That is a basic idea. I am not pursuing the value of


competition as sacrilege. It is simply saying, if you have two


providers of services, everybody wants to provide better services,


does a one provider allowed but? -- Whether it is employment, whether


it is manufacturing, we have had different practices and our own


parliamentary systems. We have had our own legislation. This is where


I think the commission get overly ambitious sometimes in terms of


time frames. You can change all of this overnight.


The baggage handlers may have won this battle against more


competition for the moment, but the commission's calls for more


liberalisation will continue. Claude Moraes, as this is the 20th


anniversary of the single market, it isn't it time to close the gaps


in remaining areas of competition? I voted against this because it was


a bad proposal. Our job is to examine these proposals. We are


legislators. We should look at the things. One was it bad?


Be coz they did not look at it In the UK, we had a liberalised


position. It works well. People mistake the role of any peace. --


MEPs. In the German context, we listened carefully, looked at the


proposal, and it was flawed. The commission came forward too quickly


on this. They did not consult the trade unions, for example. That is


why I did not want to vote for this. It has just been sent back to


Committee. It will come back again. Liberalisation, per say, is not


wrong. It can bring down costs for the consumer, but it has to be done


properly. The German concerns were about


safety as well, in terms of baggage. My main concern, and I've voted to


send his back because it was flawed, we have the most liberal markets in


the UK in regard to this, and yet this would have imposed a different


regulation on us. That is not fair. It does not take into account the


systems that already exist. To impose a less liberal will --


system on a liberal one is not right.


I am pleased that the entire mandate here is about finishing the


single market. I wish that was their mantra. We can amend bad


proposals. We have sent it back. That is not common.


It is not liberalisation for its own sake. It does not sometimes


work. Where it works is where it is good for the consumer. It breaks


the Monopolies and brings down the price. What about railways, Claude


Moraes? There's a perception in Britain that state owned companies


in Europe can be to run railway lines in the UK. The German one,


for instance, can run a line here, but we can't run one in Germany.


The liberalisation is good if it works for the consumer. This is why


you can't just say, ideologically, it is a good thing. You have to


look at each proposal as it comes. That is why, in this case, you look


at the proposal, and in this case we sent it back. Which areas would


you like to push for? What would you go for next? The real key is


this transport issue. It has to be a liberalised market going forwards.


The energy markets are the other one I would be pushing for. The UK


has got the most liberal of both those markets. The energy market as


well? On the energy market, it is certainly liberal. We have very few


British companies left. We have a liberal attitude towards these. The


irony is, it is the French and German companies who dominate our


market on both those big sectors. And yet we don't have any say or


access on those. So it is your job to sort that. No pressure!


There are current the 27 member countries in the EU, with as many


languages. There had as everybody in Brussels communicate with each


other? Maybe they don't speak to each other!


Here is Adam Fleming. The EU is like a modern-day Tower of Babel.


It looks a bit less nice. The idea if it does matter is that every one


of the citizens can communicate with the EU in their mother tongue,


whether they are Bulgarian, French, or finish. It means that here,


based B23 different languages. speak German, French, English,


Italian and Dutch. English, French, Portuguese, German.


German, French, Norwegian, Danish. A no Estonians because? Anybody


speak Irish? That means there are 506 Language


combinations. Here, in the document distribution centre, they churn out


millions of words per year. Here is a report into some new banking


regulations. This is it in English. Here it is in Bulgaria, Slovakia


and, French, Latvian, Danish, Hungarian, Slovenian, Spanish,


finished, Dutch, Maltese, Swedish, But when it comes to the spoken


word, most languages are interpreted into English and then


re interpreted in two others. Hannah does that in Estonian. She


gave me a rare glimpse into the secret world of the interpreters.


Languages are different. You can see if you look into the Spanish


Booth, you see a lot of hand-waving from the interpreters, a lot of


action. The Estonians tend to be very calm. When you're actually


there, it is very intense. How long can you do it for in one go?


minutes, and then you get very tired. How do you say eurozone


The EU like to make linguists of us all. One of their goals is to make


everybody speak two languages other than their mother tongue. Good luck


with that! Yes, I don't know how many


languages Adams beats. How many languages do you speak? -- Adams


speaks. English is my second language. Welsh is my first one. I


feel at home in Brussels. Do you speak Estonian? No. I speak


a bit of Gujarati and Hindi, though. I don't know if that is on the list.


One thing I found, since I have been there since 1999, I found that


French was quite a dominant language when I arrived. What I


have discovered now is that English is the dominant language. A lot of


our work is done informally. has that happened? Accession was a


huge thing. In 2004, I noticed a huge shift. They came in, some of


the people from the Stalinist era, and they had learned French and


their mother tongue, they then came in, started learning English.


Everybody else learned English. Some of these southern states, like


Cyprus. In his became their language. If you know English and


you are in these informal meetings, it gives to such an advantage. That


has been written about constantly. It is that little secret that we


have. For all these years, sceptics have thought that our influence is


waning. What about the French, they must be a set? The only people who


insist on speaking their mother tongue, no matter what, are my


French colleagues. But actually, we all speak in English, so even my


French colleagues can speak, by and large, good English. Even the


commissioner will speak in English now, particularly on things like


banking union and things. Across the globe, finance is done in


English. It is not because I am British. It because finance is done


in English. We have an advantage. Thank you very much. That is all


Download Subtitles